See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41896687

Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength

Assessment
ARTICLE in INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE FEBRUARY 2010
Impact Factor: 2.07 DOI: 10.1055/s-0029-1242815 Source: PubMed

CITATIONS

READS

65

938

3 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Luis Snchez-Medina

Juan Jos Gonzlez Badillo

Centro de Estudios, Investigacin y Medicin

Universidad Pablo de Olavide

28 PUBLICATIONS 392 CITATIONS

79 PUBLICATIONS 1,418 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Luis Snchez-Medina

Retrieved on: 02 February 2016

Training & Testing 123

Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength

Assessment

Authors

L. Sanchez-Medina1, C. E. Perez2, J. J. Gonzalez-Badillo1

Aliations

Key words
bench press

maximal power output

load-power relationship

isoinertial loading

resistance training

Abstract
&

Pablo de Olavide University, Faculty of Sport, Seville, Spain

University of Murcia, Sports Medicine Centre, Murcia, Spain

This study analyzed the contribution of the propulsive and braking phases among dierent percentages of the one-repetition maximum (1RM)
in the concentric bench press exercise. One hundred strength-trained men performed a test with
increasing loads up to the 1RM for the individual
determination of the load-power relationship.
The relative load that maximized the mechanical
power output (Pmax) was determined using three
dierent parameters: mean concentric power
(MP), mean power of the propulsive phase (MPP)
and peak power (PP). The load at which the braking phase no longer existed was 76.1 7.4 % 1RM.

Introduction
&

accepted after revision

October 12, 2009
Bibliography
DOI http://dx.doi.org/
10.1055/s-0029-1242815
Published online:
December 17, 2009
Int J Sports Med 2010; 31:
123129 Georg Thieme
Verlag KG Stuttgart New York
ISSN 0172-4622
Correspondence
Prof. Luis Sanchez-Medina
Faculty of Sport
Pablo de Olavide University
Ctra. de Utrera km 1
41013 Seville
Spain
Tel.: + 34676473383
Fax: + 34968217491
lsmedina@upo.es

The kinematics and kinetics associated with

resistance training are believed to be critical
stimuli for neuromuscular adaptations to occur
[8]. Unlike isometric and isokinetic tests that
usually have a relatively poor relationship to
dynamic athletic performance [2, 22, 23], isoinertial (constant gravitational load) strength testing
seems to better resemble the actual training and
competition tasks that typically involve acceleration and deceleration [11, 17, 18, 22], and appears
to be more sensitive to track intrasubject changes
in strength as a consequence of training [1].
In most resistance exercises, movement starts
from zero velocity, achieves peak velocity at some
intermediate time within the concentric portion
of the lift and, finally, returns again to zero velocity. Consequently, an important aspect to take
into account when lifting loads in typical isoinertial exercises is the fact that a considerable portion of the concentric phase is devoted to
decelerate the moving resistance. When light and
medium loads are lifted, there exists a final phase
during which deceleration is of greater magni-

Pmax was dependent on the parameter used: MP

(54.2 %), MPP (36.5 %) or PP (37.4 %). No significant dierences were found for loads between
4065 % 1RM (MP) or 2055 % 1RM (MPP and
PP), nor between Pmax ( %1RM) when using MPP
or PP. Pmax was independent of relative strength,
although certain tendency towards slightly lower
loads was detected for the strongest subjects.
These results highlight the importance of considering the contribution of the propulsive and
braking phases in isoinertial strength and power
assessments. Referring the mean mechanical values to the propulsive phase avoids underestimating an individuals true neuromuscular potential
when lifting light and medium loads.

tude than what would be expected due solely to

the eect of gravity, this being the result of the
athlete applying force in the opposite direction to
the loads motion. During this final phase, the
force applied by the athlete (F) against the external load of mass m is negative, i. e. since F = m
(a + g), F becomes negative only when a < g (g
being the acceleration due to gravity, and a the
acceleration imparted to the moving load). Thus,
the concentric portion of a lift can be further
subdivided into a propulsive (F > 0) and a braking (F < 0) phase [18], a dierentiation that could
be of greater practical relevance than that previously used [14, 20, 24] and which was merely a
division of the concentric action into accelerating
(a > 0) and decelerating (a < 0) phases. However,
to the best of our knowledge, there is no study
that has undertaken a detailed examination of
the contribution of these propulsive and braking
phases to dierent loading conditions.
In other respects, the question of which is the
load that generates the maximal power output
(Pmax) has been the subject of much debate in the
exercise sciences. Initially, it was reported that
relatively light loads such as 30 % of maximum

Sanchez-Medina L et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123129

124 Training & Testing

isometric force [19] or maximum muscle shortening velocity

[13] maximized power output. However, more recent research
conducted using multi-joint dynamic muscular actions in isoinertial conditions has found considerable variability (2080 %
1RM) in the relative loads that produce the Pmax [37, 9, 10, 15
18, 25, 26]. These disparities, which have lead to certain ambiguity surrounding the load-power relationship, can be attributed
mainly to methodological (peak vs. mean measures of power,
inclusion or exclusion of body mass in lower-body power output
calculations, variety of protocols employed, etc.) and contextual
and inter-individual dierences (novice vs. well-trained athletes) between studies [12]. In addition, there seems to exist a
dierence in the Pmax load according to the type of exercise performed and/or muscle groups involved [57].
This study aimed to identify the relative contribution of the propulsive and braking phases among dierent percentages of the
one-repetition maximum (1RM), and to determine whether
mean mechanical measures of only the propulsive phase could
better discriminate between athletes of dierent strength level
than their correspondent means of the entire concentric portion
of the lift. A secondary purpose was to further investigate the
load-power relationship in the concentric bench press exercise
by comparing the Pmax load ( %1RM) using three dierent power
measures: mean concentric power (MP), mean power of the propulsive phase (MPP) and peak power (PP). It was hypothesized
that the Pmax load in the bench press would be significantly
higher using MP compared to MPP or PP.

Materials and Methods

&
Subjects
One hundred young healthy men volunteered to take part in this
study. The subjects mean SD age, height, body mass, body fat
percentage, and one-repetition maximum (1RM) bench press
were: 25.1 5.0 years, 1.78 0.06 m, 79.4 8.3 kg, 13.0 3.9 %,
98.7 12.5 kg, respectively. Subjects weight training experience
ranged from 1.5 to beyond 4 years (23 sessions per week) and,
at the time of testing, all were currently training for the physical
aptitude trials required to be a firefighter, which included a
bench press exercise. No physical limitations or musculoskeletal
injuries that could aect testing were reported. The study, which
was conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki, was
approved by the Research Ethics Committee of Pablo de Olavide
University and, after being informed of the purpose and experimental procedures, subjects signed a written informed consent
form prior to participation.

Testing procedures
For each subject, testing was conducted over two sessions separated by 72 h. The first session was used for body composition
assessment, personal data and health history questionnaire
administration, and familiarization with the bench press (BP)
testing protocol. Subjects arrived at the laboratory in the morning, in a well rested condition and fasted state. After being interviewed and their body composition determined, they were
instructed and coached on how to properly perform the lifts and
carried out some practice sets with light and medium loads. After
a full resting day, subjects performed a BP test for the determination of the 1RM, as well as the full load-power relationship. They
lay supine on a flat bench, with their feet resting on the bench,
and hands placed on the barbell slightly wider than shoulder

width. Positions on the bench and grip widths were measured so

that they could be individually reproduced on every lift. Warmup consisted of 5 min of stationary cycling at a self-selected easy
pace, 5 min of static stretching and upper-body joint mobilization
exercises, followed by one set of 5 repetitions of BP with a fixed
load of 20 kg. Each subject was instructed to lower the bar to the
chest, just above the nipples, in a slow and controlled manner
and wait there, in an alert state, until hearing a command from
an experienced evaluator. This momentary pause, which lasted
approximately 1.5 s, was imposed between the eccentric and
concentric phases in order to minimize the contribution of the
rebound eect and allow for more reproducible, consistent measurements. Subjects were not allowed to bounce the bar o their
chests or raise the shoulders or trunk o the bench. Each subject
was carefully instructed to always perform each BP in an explosive manner, exploding the bar o the chest as fast as possible
upon hearing the command. Strong verbal encouragement and
velocity feedback in every repetition was provided in order to
motivate the participants to give a maximal eort.
Initial load was set at 20 kg for all subjects, and was progressively
increased in 10 kg increments until the attained mean propulsive
velocity (MPV) was lower than 0.5 m s 1. Thereafter, load was
adjusted with smaller increments (51 kg), individually for each
subject, so that 1RM could be determined with great precision.
The heaviest load that each subject could properly lift to the full
extension of his elbows was considered to be his 1RM. Trained
spotters were present on both sides of the barbell when high
loads were lifted to ensure safety. For the lighter loads
(MPV > 1.0 m s 1) three attempts were executed at each load;
two for the medium (0.65 m s 1 MPV 1.0 m s 1); and only one
for the heaviest loads (MPV < 0.65 m s 1). Resting pauses were
23 min for the lighter and medium loads, and 56 min for the
heaviest loads. Only the best repetition at each load, according to
the criteria of fastest MPV, was considered for analysis.

Measurement equipment and data acquisition

Height was measured to the nearest 0.5 cm during a maximal
inhalation using a wall-mounted stadiometer (Seca 202, Seca
Ltd., Hamburg, Germany). Body weight and fat percentage were
determined using an 8-contact electrode segmental body composition analyzer (Tanita BC-418, Tanita Corp., Tokyo, Japan).
A Smith machine (Multipower Fitness Line, Peroga, Spain) that
allows a smooth vertical displacement of the bar along a fixed
pathway was used for all tests. A dynamic measurement system
(T-Force System, Ergotech, Murcia, Spain) which consists of a
cable-extension linear velocity transducer interfaced to a personal computer by means of a 14-bit resolution analog-to-digital
data acquisition board and specialized software, automatically
calculated the relevant kinematic and kinetic parameters of every
repetition, provided real time information on screen and stored
data on disk for subsequent analysis. Vertical instantaneous velocity (v) was sampled at a frequency of 1 000 Hz. Eccentric (negative
v) and concentric (positive v) phases of the movement were automatically detected by the system attending to the sign of the
velocity signal. The derived mechanical variables were calculated
by the software as follows: displacement was obtained by integration of v data with respect to time; instantaneous acceleration
(a) was obtained from dierentiation of v with respect to time;
instantaneous force (F) was calculated as F = m (a + g), where m is
the moving mass (kg) and g is the acceleration due to gravity;
instantaneous power output resulted from the product of the
vertical applied force and bar velocity (P = F v). The propulsive

Sanchez-Medina L et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123129

Training & Testing 125

phase was defined as that portion of the concentric phase during

which the measured acceleration is greater than acceleration due
to gravity (i. e. a 9.81 m s 2); whereas the final braking phase
corresponds to the remaining part of the concentric phase, that
during which a < g. Validity and reliability of this system were
previously established in pilot testing. Relative error in the velocity measurements was found to be < 0.25 %, while displacement
was accurate to 0.5 mm (unpublished data).

the braking phase accounts for a considerable portion of the lift

(23.3 % in this example). Since force, and hence power output, is
negative during the braking phase, mean power over the whole
concentric phase (MP) is 40 % lower than mean power of only the
propulsive phase (MPP) (256 vs. 422 W, respectively for MP and
MPP). This dierence between MP and MPP was progressively
reduced as the lifted loads got heavier, until a load is reached where
the braking phase disappears and both parameters coincide. This
Fig. 1C for a load of 80 %1RM. In
Fig. 1B
can be appreciated in
and D, provided for comparison purposes, the concentric action is
divided into the more usual accelerating and decelerating phases.
Fig. 2A shows the high correlation that exists between load

( %1RM) and relative contribution of the propulsive phase to the

total concentric duration of the lift (r = 0.92, p < 0.001) from indi Table 1 shows the
vidual data obtained in the 100 BP tests.
contribution of the propulsive and braking phases to the total
concentric time from 20 to 100 % 1RM, in 5 % increments, according to calculations made using the linear regression equation
Fig. 2A. The relative load at which the braking phase
shown in
no longer existed (i. e. concentric action was entirely propulsive)
was found to be 76.1 7.4 % 1RM, corresponding to a MV of
Fig. 2B).
0.53 0.07 m s 1 (

Statistical analyses
Standard statistical methods were used for the calculation of
means, standard deviations (SD) and Pearson product-moment
correlation coecients. One-way ANOVA was used to detect differences between subgroups of subjects. Sche post-hoc test
was used to identify the source of any significant dierences.
Relationship between relative load and power output was studied by fitting second-order polynomials to data. Significance was
accepted at the p 0.05 level.

Results
&
Contribution of the propulsive and braking phases to
dierent loading conditions

Mean vs. Mean Propulsive measures in athletes with

dierent absolute strength

The contribution of the propulsive and braking phases to the

total concentric duration when a light load (20 % 1RM) is lifted is
Fig. 1A for a representative subject. As can be seen,
shown in

P>0

1.0
0.5
0.0

0
20

40

60

80

Concentric Phase Duration (%)

100

-0.5

P<0

-250

-1.0

MP = 256 W MV = 1.31 m.s-1

MPP = 422 W MPV = 1.35 m.s-1
PP = 687 W PV = 2.33 m.s-1

-1.5

1.5

0.0
20

(30.0%)

2.5

0.5

a>0

0.0
80

100

-0.5

Concentric Phase Duration (%)

a<0

-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5

Accelerating Phase (70.0%)

Acceleration (m s-2)

1.0

60

-0.5
-1.0

MP = 318 W MV = 0.45 m.s-1

MPP = 318 W MPV = 0.45 m.s-1
PP = 636 W PV = 0.79 m.s-1

-1.5
-2.0
-2.5

D
2.0

40

100

-250

1.5

20

80

PROPULSIVE Phase (100%)

Decelerating Phase

Velocity
Acceleration

60

-750

Velocity (m s-1)

Acceleration (m s-2)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35

40

Concentric Phase Duration (%)

PROPULSIVE Phase (76.7%)

20% 1RM

0.5

-500

-2.5

1.0

P>0

250

-2.0

-750

2.0

500

1.5

250

2.5

Velocity
Power Output

Velocity (m s-1)

2.0

Power Output (W)

Power Output (W)

750

2.5

(23.3%)

500

-500

80% 1RM

BRAKING Phase

Velocity
Power Output

Velocity (m s-1)

750

Decelerating
Phase

80% 1RM
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35

(11.7%) 2.5

Velocity
Acceleration

2.0
1.5
1.0

a>0

0.5
0.0

20

40

60

80

100

Concentric Phase Duration (%)

a<0

-0.5

Velocity (m s-1)

20% 1RM

Examples of the load-velocity and load-power relationships for

three representative subjects (S1, S2, S3) with dierent levels of

-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
-2.5

Accelerating Phase (88.3%)

Fig. 1 Example of power output, velocity, and acceleration curves obtained when lifting a light (20 % 1RM) versus a high (80 % 1RM) load for a
representative subject. The relative contribution of the propulsive and braking (A, C) or the accelerating and decelerating (B, D) phases to the total
concentric duration in the bench press is shown. MP = Mean Power, MPP = Mean Propulsive Power, PP = Peak Power, MV = Mean Velocity, MPV = Mean
Propulsive Velocity, PV = Peak Velocity, P = Power Output, a = Acceleration.

Sanchez-Medina L et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123129

126 Training & Testing

The load that maximizes the mechanical power output
(Pmax)

100

Propulsive Phase (% of total concentric time)

90

80

70

60

y = 0.4758 x + 62.087
r = 0.92; P < 0.001; SEE = 3.77%; N = 622

50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

100

90

Load (% 1RM)
2.0

Mean Propulsive Velocity (m s-1)

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
y = -0.03083 x + 3.607

0.4

r = -0.91; P < 0.001; SEE = 0.13 m.s-1; N = 622

0.2
0.0
55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Propulsive Phase (% total concentric time)

Fig. 2 Relationship between contribution of the propulsive phase to

the total concentric duration of the lift and load ( % 1RM) (A); and mean
propulsive velocity and contribution of the propulsive phase (B) in the
bench press exercise.

Table 1 Relative contribution of the propulsive and braking phases to the

total concentric duration in the bench press exercise (n = 100).
Load ( %1RM)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100

Propulsive Phase ( %)
72
74
76
79
81
83
86
88
91
93
95
98
100
100
100
100
100

Braking Phase ( %)
28
26
24
21
19
17
14
12
9
7
5
2
0
0
0
0
0

maximum dynamic strength (1RM values of 80 kg, 102.5 kg and

Fig. 3. As shown in
127.5 kg, respectively) can be found in

Fig. 3D)
these examples, MPV ( Fig. 3B) and especially MPP (
can better discriminate between existing dierences in strength
Fig. 3A) or MP (
Fig. 3C) when light and
levels than MV (
medium loads are lifted.

The load that maximized the mechanical power output was

found to be dependent on the parameter used: MP, MPP or PP
Fig. 4). In order to calculate the P
(
max load, a second-order
polynomial curve was fitted to individual load-power data
points. The power data were expressed relative to the maximum
power output value obtained in each test for each condition.
Fig. 4A), power output was maximized at a
When using MP (
load of 54.2 % 1RM, although no statistically significant dierences were found for loads between 40 and 65 % 1RM. For MPP
Fig. 4B) and PP (
Fig. 4C), P
(
max was found at 36.5 % 1RM and
37.4 % 1RM, respectively, with no significant dierences between
these loads. Pmax ( %1RM) calculated attending to MPP or PP
parameters was significantly lower to that obtained using MP.
No statistically significant dierences in power output were
found for loads between 20 and 55 % 1RM for MPP or PP. The
absolute Pmax values directly obtained in the BP tests were
453 69 W for MP, 568 84 W for MPP, and 938 148 W for PP, all
values significantly dierent from each other (p < 0.001).
Fig. 4D provides a comparison between the absolute power

output values obtained with these three parameters for loads

between 20 % and 100 % 1RM, in 5 % increments. These values
were obtained from the respective individual second-order polynomial fits to each subjects raw data, which gave R2 values of
0.97 0.02 for MP, 0.98 0.02 for MPP, and 0.95 0.04 for PP.

Pmax load independent of individual relative strength

In order to study whether the Pmax load depends on individual
strength levels, the total sample of 100 subjects was divided into
three subgroups, according to each subjects relative strength
ratio (RSR): group 1 (G1), n = 34, 0.95. RSR 1.14; group 2
(G2), n = 36, 1.16 RSR 1.31; and group 3 (G3), n = 30, 1.34
RSR 2.09. No significant dierences in Pmax ( % 1RM) were
found between groups for any of the three parameters examined
(MP, MPP, PP), although certain tendency towards slightly lower
Pmax loads was detected for the strongest group (G3), especially
Table 2).
when MP and MPP parameters were used (

Discussion
&
The results of this study highlight the importance of considering
the contribution of the propulsive and braking phases when
assessing strength and muscle power in isoinertial conditions.
The main finding of this investigation was that referring the
mean values to only the propulsive phase when assessing the
velocity and power with which a load is lifted in a concentric
action avoids underestimating an individuals neuromuscular
ability, especially when lifting light and medium loads. Surprisingly, to the best of our knowledge, this is something that no
previous research had noticed. The present study also adds to
previous research by corroborating that the Pmax load in the
bench press exercise clearly depends on the exact outcome
parameter used to measure power output (i. e. mean, peak or
mean propulsive power), and provides evidence that there is not
a clearly defined point in the load spectrum that maximizes
power output, but rather there exists a relatively broad range of
loads that yield similar high power values.
The advantage of referring the mean mechanical values to the
Fig. 3. When
propulsive phase can clearly be appreciated in
considering the whole concentric phase, the mean power output

Sanchez-Medina L et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123129

Training & Testing 127

Mean Velocity
1.80

Velocity (m s-1)

1.60

Mean Power

2.00

R = 0.997

S1, 1RM = 80 kg

800

S2, 1RM = 102.5 kg

700

S3, 1RM = 127.5 kg

600

Power Output (W)

1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
2
R = 0.998

0.00
10

30

50

70

400
300
200
2
R = 0.992

100

R2 = 0.997

0.20

500

90

110

0
130

10

30

50

Load (kg)
B

70

90

110

130

Load (kg)
D

Mean Propulsive Velocity

Mean Propulsive Power

800

2.00
2
R = 0.997

1.80

700

Power Output (W)

1.60

Velocity (m s-1)

2
R = 0.963

R2 = 0.988

1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60

600
500
400
300
200

0.40
0.20

100

R = 0.998

10

30

50

70

R = 0.992

R2 = 0.997

0.00
90

110

2
R = 0.981

R2 = 0.991

0
130

10

Load (kg)

30

50

70

90

110

130

Load (kg)

Fig. 3 Examples of the load-velocity and load-power relationships for three representative subjects with dierent levels of maximum strength. Mean
concentric velocity and power output values (A, C) and mean values of only the propulsive phase of the lift (B, D) are shown.

Group
All (n = 100)
G1 (n = 34) Less Strong
G2 (n = 36) Strong
G3 (n = 30) Very Strong

Relative Strength*
1.25 0.20
1.08 0.05
1.23 0.05
1.49 0.18

MP
ab

54.6 7.3
55.6 5.8 ab
55.7 9.3 ab
52.2 5.6 ab

MPP

PP

35.9 8.4
36.9 8.9
36.1 8.4
34.4 7.8

37.7 9.7
39.7 9.0
36.4 11.1
36.9 8.5

Table 2 Dierences in the Pmax load ( % 1RM) within

subgroups using three distinct outcome measures of
power output in the bench press exercise.

All groups significantly dierent from each other (p < 0.001), asignificantly dierent to that obtained using MPP

(p < 0.001), bsignificantly dierent to that obtained using PP (p < 0.001), *Relative strength ratio, defined as
1RM value divided by body mass. MP = Mean Power, MPP = Mean Propulsive Power, PP = Peak Power

developed with a load of 20 kg by a subject with a RM of 80 kg

(S1) is only 40 W (15.7 %) lower than that obtained with the
same absolute load by a subject with a RM of 127.5 kg (S3)
Fig. 3C); by contrast, if mean values are referred to the pro(
pulsive phase, this dierence in power output between subjects
increases to 305 W (76.1 %), better reflecting the distinct neuromuscular potential of these two athletes. This means that
when mean values are referred to the entire concentric portion
of a lift, the higher the 1RM of a subject, the more underestimated his/her true strength potential gets when compared with
that of another subject who has a low 1RM. This is explained by
the fact that the higher the mean velocity is (and lower the relative load), the greater is the relative contribution of the braking
Table 1). Subjects with a
phase to the total concentric time (
higher RM will lift the same absolute loads at faster velocities
and thus they will experience a longer braking phase that negatively influences the computation of the mean concentric value.

As it can be derived from these observations, the evaluation of

the training eect should preferentially be done by referring
mean mechanical values to the propulsive phase, especially
when using loads 70 % 1RM.
Fig. 2, the braking phase depends on the relative
As shown in
magnitude ( % 1RM) of the load to be lifted. The lighter the load
(and higher the velocity of movement), the greater the duration
of this braking phase. When the load is suciently high, this
braking phase disappears. Thus, although certain inter-subject
variability does exist, approximately from 76 % 1RM onwards
Table 1;
Fig. 2), the full concentric phase can be consid(
ered entirely propulsive, mean mechanical values of the whole
concentric phase and mean propulsive values being identical
The results of this study strongly support previous research [3, 4,
9, 10, 17, 18, 21, 26] showing that intermediate loads (5060 %
1RM) maximize the mean mechanical power output (MP) in the
Table 2;
Fig. 4A). In contrast to some
bench press exercise (

Sanchez-Medina L et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123129

128 Training & Testing

Mean Power

Peak Power

C
100
Power Output (% of maximum)

Power Output (% of maximum)

100

80

60

y = -0.03 x2 + 3.2511 x + 11.67

40

R = 0.91; SEE = 6.56%; n = 1,028

20

Pmax = 54.2% 1RM

80

60

40

y = -0.0125 x2 + 0.9355 x + 78.772

R2 = 0.82; SEE = 8.21%; n = 1,028

20

Pmax = 37.4% 1RM

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

10

20

30

40

Load (% 1RM)
Mean Propulsive Power

60

70

D
1000

100

Mean Propulsive Power (MPP)

900

80

Power Output (W)

800
60

y = -0.0169 x2 + 1.2348 x + 74.338

R2 = 0.95; SEE = 5.75%; n = 1,028

20

90

Peak Power (PP)

1100

40

80

Mean Power (MP)

100
Power Output (% of maximum)

50

Load (% 1RM)

700

#a #a #a #a #a #a #a

600

#a

#b

#b

#b #b #b #b #b #b
#b #b

*
*

400
300

*
*

#a

500

200 #b
100

Pmax = 36.5% 1RM

#a #a

(N = 100)

#
#

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Load (% 1RM)

20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Load (% 1RM)

Fig. 4 Load-power relationships according to three dierent measures of power output in the bench press (AC); and comparison between the absolute
power values developed for each condition (D) and derived from the second-order polynomial fits to individual load-power data. Significantly dierent
(p < 0.001) to that obtained using: *MPP and MP; #PP; aMP; bMPP for each corresponding load.

studies [9, 15, 16, 19, 21] that only compared the power output
developed against a reduced number (35) of fixed relative loads,
an advantage of the approach used in the present study was the
fact that subjects performed quite a lot of attempts (10.3 1.7) at
increasing absolute loads enabling us to establish a more complete load-power profile that provides a better determination of
the Pmax load. Likewise, most of the studies that reported lower
loads for the Pmax (~45 % 1RM) in the BP [15, 16, 25], did not
examine loads between 45 % and 60 % 1RM. It seems clear from
our results and those of previous research [4, 10, 26] that the
magnitude of power output values developed around the Pmax
Fig. 4A, D) and thus exists a bandwidth
load are very similar (
of loads that maximize power output. In fact, although Pmax was
found at 55 % 1RM in this study, no statistical dierences in MP
existed for loads ranging from 40 to 65 % 1RM. As recently
pointed out [12], these results make us wonder whether perhaps excessive attention has been paid to the question of identifying a single load for maximizing power output.
When considering mean power output parameters of only the
Fig. 4B, C),
propulsive phase (MPP) or peak power values (PP) (
the Pmax load was found at significantly lower loads (p < 0.001)
Fig. 4A). This coincides well with
than when MP was used (
most of the literature which has reported dierences in the Pmax
load when mean vs. peak measures of power were used
[9, 10, 12, 18, 25]. The dierence between MP and MPP Pmax loads

can be explained by the fact that when the whole concentric

phase is considered, MV is reduced compared to MPV and a
given subject needs a higher load ( % 1RM) to develop his/her
maximal power output since the latter is a product of a compromised level of force and velocity.
Interestingly, the Pmax load for MPP and PP was almost identical
Table 2;
Fig. 4B, C) and both load-power
(~37 % 1RM) (
curves showed a very similar shape, running parallel to one
Fig. 4D). The range of loads that maximized power
another (
output was even wider than that found for MP; thus, no significant dierences were found for loads between 20 and 55 % 1RM
Fig. 4C)
for PP and MPP. It is worth noting that PP values (
Fig. 4A) or MPP
showed greater variability than MP (
Fig. 4B) values. Thus, of the three parameters analyzed, MPP
(
was the most stable, which lends further support to its preferential use in strength and power assessment.
The observed dierences (distinct Pmax values and loads)
between mean measures of the whole concentric portion of the
lift and mean measures of only the propulsive phase were found
to be independent of performance (1RM strength). When the
total sample of participants was further divided into three sub Table 2), a somewhat
groups of dierent relative strength (
lower but not significant Pmax load ( % 1RM) was found for the
strongest group of subjects, especially when MP was used. This
finding is well in line with previous studies showing that the

Sanchez-Medina L et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123129

Training & Testing 129

Pmax load is slightly reduced for the strongest and most experienced strength-trained athletes [3, 4].
In summary, the findings of the present study show the importance of referring the mean mechanical values to the propulsive
phase of a lift rather than to the whole concentric portion of the
movement, especially when assessing strength and muscle
power using light and medium loads. We advocate for the preferential use of mean propulsive parameters since they seem to
be a better indicative of an individuals true neuromuscular
potential.

References
1 Abernethy PJ, Jurimae J. Cross-sectional and longitudinal uses of isoinertial, isometric, and isokinetic dynamometry. Med Sci Sports Exerc
1996; 28: 11801187
2 Baker D, Wilson G, Carlyon B. Generality versus specificity: a comparison of dynamic and isometric measures of strength and speedstrength. Eur J Appl Physiol 1994; 68: 350355
3 Baker D. Comparison of upper-body strength and power between professional and college-aged rugby league players. J Strength Cond Res
2001; 15: 3035
4 Baker D, Nance S, Moore M. The load that maximizes the average
mechanical power output during explosive bench press throws in
highly trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2001; 15: 2024
5 Baker D, Nance S, Moore M. The load that maximizes the average
mechanical power output during jump squats in power-trained athletes. J Strength Cond Res 2001; 15: 9297
6 Cormie P, McCaulley GO, Triplett NT, McBride JM. Optimal loading for
maximal power output during lower-body resistance exercises. Med
Sci Sports Exerc 2007; 39: 340349
7 Cormie P, McBride JM, McCaulley GO. The influence of body mass on
calculation of power during lower-body resistance exercises. J Strength
Cond Res 2007; 21: 10421049
8 Crewther B, Cronin J, Keogh J. Possible stimuli for strength and power
adaptation. Acute mechanical responses. Sports Med 2005; 35:
967989
9 Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. The role of maximal strength and
load on initial power production. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000; 32:
17631769
10 Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Developing explosive power: a comparison of technique and training. J Sci Med Sport 2001; 4: 5970
11 Cronin JB, McNair PJ, Marshall RN. Force-velocity analysis of strengthtraining techniques and load: implications for training strategy and
research. J Strength Cond Res 2003; 17: 148155
12 Cronin JB, Sleivert J. Challenges in understanding the influence of
maximal power training on improving athletic performance. Sports
Med 2005; 35: 213234

13 Edgerton VR, Roy RR, Gregor RJ, Rugg S. Morphological basis of skeletal
muscle power output. . In: Jones NL, McCartney N, McComas AJ, eds.
Human muscle power. Champaign: Human Kinetics; 1986; 4364
14 Elliot BC, Wilson GJ, Kerr G. A biomechanical analysis of the sticking
region in the bench press. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1989; 21: 450462
15 Izquierdo M, Ibez J, Gorostiaga EM, Garrues M, Zuiga A, Antn A,
Larrin JL, Hkkinen K. Maximal strength and power characteristics
in isometric and dynamic actions of the upper and lower extremities
in middle-aged and older men. Acta Physiol Scand 1999; 167: 5768
16 Izquierdo M, Hkkinen K, Gonzlez-Badillo JJ, Ibez J, Gorostiaga EM.
Eects of long-term training specificity on maximal strength and
power of the upper and lower extremities in athletes from dierent
sports. Eur J Appl Physiol 2002; 87: 264271
17 Jidovtse B, Croisier JL, Lhermerout C, Serre L, Sac D, Crielaard JM. The
concept of iso-inertial assessment: reproducibility analysis and
descriptive data. Isokinet Exerc Sci 2006; 14: 5362
18 Jidovtse B, Croisier JL, Scimar N, Demoulin C, Maquet D, Crielaard JM.
The ability of isoinertial assessment to monitor specific training
eects. J Sports Med Phys Fitness 2007; 47: 5564
19 Kaneko M, Fuchimoto T, Toji H, Suei K. Training eect of dierent loads
on the force-velocity relationship and mechanical power output in
human muscle. Scand J Sports Sci 1983; 5: 5055
20 Lander JE, Bates BT, Sawhill JA, Hamill J. A comparison between freeweight and isokinetic bench pressing. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985; 17:
344353
21 Marques MC, Van der Tillaar R, Vescovi JD, Gonzlez-Badillo JJ. Relationship between throwing velocity, muscle power, and bar velocity during bench press in elite handball players. Int J Sports Physiol Perform
2007; 2: 414422
22 Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ, Pryor JF. Use of the iso-inertial force mass relationship in the prediction of dynamic human performance. Eur J Appl
Physiol 1994; 69: 250257
23 Murphy AJ, Wilson GJ. The assessment of human dynamic muscular
function: a comparison of isoinertial and isokinetic tests. J Sports Med
Phys Fitness 1996; 36: 169177
24 Newton RU, Kraemer WJ, Hkkinen K, Humphries BJ, Murphy AJ. Kinematics, kinetics and muscle activation during explosive upper body
movements. J Appl Biomech 1996; 12: 3143
25 Newton RU, Murphy AJ, Humphries BJ, Wilson GJ, Kraemer WJ, Hkkinen
K. Influence of load and stretch shortening cycle on the kinematics,
kinetics and muscle activation that occurs during explosive upperbody movements. Eur J Appl Physiol 1997; 75: 333342
26 Siegel JA, Gilders RM, Staron RS, Hagerman FC. Human muscle power
output during upper and lower-body exercises. J Strength Cond Res
2002; 16: 173178

Sanchez-Medina L et al. Importance of the Propulsive Phase in Strength Assessment. Int J Sports Med 2010; 31: 123129